From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:44:45 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 4/5] portaudio: add license information In-Reply-To: References: <1369268647-13128-1-git-send-email-gilles.talis@gmail.com> <1369268647-13128-4-git-send-email-gilles.talis@gmail.com> <20130523065904.GD3373@free.fr> <20130523070918.GG25186@sapphire.tkos.co.il> <20130523073314.GE3373@free.fr> Message-ID: <20130523174445.GC3250@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Gilles, Baruch, All, On 2013-05-23 07:49 -0700, Gilles Talis spake thusly: > 2013/5/23 Yann E. MORIN : > > Baruch, All, > > > > On 2013-05-23 10:09 +0300, Baruch Siach spake thusly: > >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:59:04AM +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > [--SNIP--] > >> > This is not really MIT, since there is additional text: > >> > > >> > ---8<--- > >> > * The text above constitutes the entire PortAudio license; however, > >> > * the PortAudio community also makes the following non-binding > >> > * requests: > >> > * > >> > * Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is > >> > * requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that > >> > * they can be incorporated into the canonical version. It is also > >> > * requested that these non-binding requests be included along with the > >> > * license above. > >> > ---8<--- > >> > > >> > So I'd say: > >> > PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = portaudio license (MIT-like plus special clause) > >> > > >> > (which by the way makes it non-free software.) > >> > >> Well, the text you cite says explicitly that these are "non-binding requests". > >> Would you still consider this non-free? > > > > Well, I poundered that, yes. But the way it is phrased is dubious. > > > > First, it states that it is a non-binding clause. But then the clause > > states "[a]ny person [doing changes] is requested to send modifications > > [upstream]." The term "requested" is a bit strong for a non-binding > > clause. > > > > So, let me rephrase: > > (which by the way *may* make it non-free software.) > > > > But the final word should come from a legal counsel, of course. :-) > > > > Anyway, this is not "MIT" per-se. > > > > Regards, > > Yann E. MORIN. > > I actually had the same assumption as Baruch. I felt like the > "non-binding requests" was the most important information in the text. > Anyway, as you say, let's wait for a license expert to give final word > on this. What I meant by "legal counsel" was about the end-user contacting *his* legal counsel, not us. We do not have such ressources. > I'll send a patch later when we get confirmation that license type > needs to be modified. My proposal is still to have: PORTAUDIO_LICENSE = portaudio license (MIT-like plus special clause) Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'